Operation Shield

Patrick Kenner made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I would like to request the following information:

(1) Communications either sent to or from Errol Patterson, the African Caribbean Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
(2) Communications either sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective Superintendent at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
(3) Communications either sent to or from Richard Wood, Borough Commander at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
(4) Communications either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Kenner

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2015030001571
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

Freedom of Information request - Operation Shield

I would like to request the following information:

(1) Communications either sent to or from Errol Patterson, the African
Caribbean Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation
Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
(2) Communications either sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective
Superintendent at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the
period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
(3) Communications either sent to or from Richard Wood, Borough Commander
at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January
2014 to the present date.
(4) Communications either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan
Police Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1
January 2014 to the present date.

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided.  To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information.  I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly describe the information you require:

You have referred to Operation Shield in your request. Please could you
confirm what Operation Shield refers to so that it can be ascertained if
this relates to a MPS Operation.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
20/04/2015 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this request
and will treat it as withdrawn.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Yvette Taylor on telephone number 0207 230 6267 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Operation Shield was a trial announced by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, on 22 January 2015. It is a Gang Violence Intervention programme that is being run as a partnership between three London Boroughs (Lambeth, Haringey, Westminster), MOPAC, and the Metropolitan Police, as well as the individual Borough Police forces. Publicly available documents distributed by Lambeth Council state that all four of the MPS officers referred to in my original request are involved in the delivery of Operation Shield. You can find the Mayor's press release regarding this Operation below:

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-pr...

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Thank you for your E-mail. I am away from the office on 20/03/2015 . I will return on 23/03/2015.
Please direct all urgent enquiries to 020 7230 1380 or E-Mail sc&[email address]
For all non urgent enqueries, I will respond to you as soon as possible on my return.
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.

Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:
Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Kenner

Thank you for clarification of your Freedom of information Act request. I will proceed with your request.

Regards

Yvette Taylor

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Kenner

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015030001571

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Freedom of Information request - Operation Shield I would like to
request the following information: (1) Communications either sent to
or from Errol Patterson, the African Caribbean Community Liaison
Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the
period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (2) Communications either
sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective Superintendent at Lambeth MPS
concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the
present date. (3) Communications either sent to or from Richard Wood,
Borough Commander at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between
the period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (4) Communications
either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police
Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1
January 2014 to the present date.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption:

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 18/05/2015.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 6267 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Your response to this request is now long overdue. I would like to request an update on the status of this request and when you expect it to be fulfilled?

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Kenner

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015030001571

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Freedom of Information request - Operation Shield I would like to
request the following information: (1) Communications either sent to
or from Errol Patterson, the African Caribbean Community Liaison
Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the
period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (2) Communications either
sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective Superintendent at Lambeth MPS
concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the
present date. (3) Communications either sent to or from Richard Wood,
Borough Commander at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between
the period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (4) Communications
either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police
Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1
January 2014 to the present date.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, due to the volume
of documentation for your request. There are in excess of 100 email chains
for consideration for your request. We are currently redacting information
under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act as previously advised.

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 15/06/2015.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 6267 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Your response regarding this FOI request is now massively overdue, even when the revised date of the 15th of June is taken into account. Could you please urgently inform me of the status of my request.

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Thank you for your E-mail. I am away from the office from 3/8/2015 . I will return on 04/08/2015.
Please direct all urgent enquiries to 020 7 161 3649 / 783649 or E-Mail [email address]
For all non urgent enqueries, I will respond to you as soon as possible on my return.
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.

Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:
Facebook: facebook/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Kenner

Thank you for your E-Mail dated 3/8/2015.

Apologies for the continued delay in providing you with a response.

You request is at the final stage and I hope to provide you with a response within the next few days.

Thank you

Yvette Taylor - Information Manager | Information Rights Unit | Performance and Assurance | Professionalism | METHQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Telephone 0207 161 0074 | Email [email address]
Address: Information Rights Unit, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Protective Marking:
Suitable for Publication
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider information for release unless there is are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 020 7161 3500 (783500).

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

16 Attachments

 
Dear Mr Kenner
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015030001571
 
I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2015.  I note
you seek access to the following information:
 
Freedom of Information request - Operation Shield
 
 
 
I would like to request the following information:
 
(1) Communications either sent to or from Errol Patterson, the African
Caribbean Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation
Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
 
(2) Communications either sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective
Superintendent at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the
period 1 January 2014 to the present date.
 
(3) Communications either sent to or from Richard Wood, Borough Commander
at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January
2014 to the present date.
 
(4) Communications either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan
Police Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1
January 2014 to the present date.
 
Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.
 
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
 
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.
 
DECISION
 
Operation Shield is a pilot scheme in London for the Group Violence
Intervention Model. It is a partnership initiative led by the Mayor's
Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), the MPS and local authorities.
 
You have asked for communications concerning Operation Shield received by
or sent to the individuals named in your request.
 
Information has been located for Errol Patterson, the African Caribbean
Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth, Detective Superintendent  Richard
Wood and Detective Superintendent Sean Oxley. No information relevant to
your request was located concerning Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe.
 
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can
be answered.
 
The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.
 
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.  
 
Having located and considered the relevant information, I am not required
by statute to release the information in full as requested.
 
In considering the disclosure of the information that you have requested,
I have found the following exemptions apply to the requested information:
 
Section 31 (a) - Law Enforcement
Section 38 - Health and Safety
Section 40 (2)(3) - Personal Information
 
 
Section 31 Law Enforcement
 
In order for the exemption provided under Section 31(1) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would
be likely to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely Section 31(1)(a)
the prevention and detection of crime.  
 
In this case, this exemption has been applied as disclosure of the
information requested would prejudice areas within law enforcement.  
Evidence of Harm - Section 31 Law Enforcement
 
The police services/forces of the UK are charged with enforcing the law
and preventing and detecting crime.   Any information released under the
Act which reveals investigative strategies, processes and resourcing
capabilities would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime.
 
Public Interest Test - Section 31 Law Enforcement
 
The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise police
services'/forces' ability to accomplish their core function of law
enforcement. In this case, there is a very strong public interest in
protecting the law enforcement strategies and capabilities of the MPS.
 
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure - Section 31 Law
Enforcement  
 
There is a public interest in the transparency of police operations and
disclosure of how police operations are conducted would improve public
confidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of policing
operations.
 
Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public
funds are and have been used appropriately.
 
Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure - Law
Enforcement  
 
Release of the documents in full would have the effect of compromising and
disrupting law enforcement processes. Disclosure of the requested
information in full may be of use to those with criminal intent by
revealing the process used by the MPS to identify offenders and strategies
for assisting gang members to exit from a criminal lifestyle.
 
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map capabilities and processes used by
the MPS.
 
The release of the information in full is likely to prejudice and inhibit
free and frank discussions and exchange of views between the MPS and
partner agencies as the latter would not expect the MPS to release
information about their views and opinions whilst the pilot for Operation
Shield is ongoing. The impact of this could have severe consequences for
the local community, if partner agencies lack the trust to work together. 
 
Balance Test - Section 31 Law Enforcement
 
The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with policing
operations and would hinder the process for gang members seeking
assistance to exit gangs. Anything that undermines this would have a
detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives
and consequently compromising the effectiveness of policing operations.
 
The release of the requested information in full would undermine the MPS'
ability to plan and deliver Operation Shield effectively
 
I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.
 
Section 38 Health and Safety
 
Section 38(1) of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of
information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or
mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of an
individual.  
 
When this exemption is applied, the harm in disclosure needs to be
demonstrated and a PIT carried out.
 
Section 38 Evidence of Harm
 
Disclosure of the information in full is likely to place individuals at
risk of harm and cause those seeking to use Operation Shield to exit from
a criminal lifestyle to be distrustful of the MPS, if through disclosure
under the Act, information is placed in the public domain about gang exit
strategies and processes. This could compromise the mental health of the
person involved and affect community relationships. It would affect the
effectiveness of Operation Shield and other future police operations .
 
Public Interest Test
 
Section 38 Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
 
There is a public interest in disclosing information which increases
transparency about how the MPS is working to combat crime. The public will
be able to have informed discussions about gangs. 
 
Section 38 Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
 
Disclosure of the requested information in full, could jeopardise the
mental state and safety of gang members and the general public.  This will
not be in the public interest.  If this information was to fall into the
hands of those wishing to thwart gang exit strategy processes, the
information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the gang
members, their families and  the wider community.
 
Disclosure of this information in full would reveal details of how
Operation Shield will operate and as such is a real, actual and
substantial risk to the health and safety of the people of London.
 
Section 38 Balance Test
 
The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served.   There is a very
strong public interest in protecting the health and safety of the people
of London who would be at risk if this information was disclosed in full.
 
I consider that the benefit that would result from disclosing the
requested information in full, does not outweigh the harm in disclosure
identified above.
 
It is therefore in our opinion, based on the balance test that disclosure
of the information in full is not made out.
 
Section 40 - Personal Information
 
Section 40(2)(3) of the Act states that information should be exempt if
the question asked constitutes a request for personal information which is
not the requestors.  
 
Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).
 
I have applied this exemption in that the names of individuals recorded in
the documentation captured by this request constitutes personal data which
would, if released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.
 
The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of the
names of officers/staff and/or other persons that are recorded within the
requested documentation constitutes personal data. The release of this
information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no
reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly
available.
 
In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to
Condition one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.
 
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.
 
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.
 
This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is
in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.
 
Balancing Test
 
Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest
in releasing correspondence related to Operation Shield. However, to
release unredacted document s could be harmful to individuals and the
success of the pilot scheme.
 
DISCLOSED INFORMATION
 
 
 
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  
 
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
E-mail me, quoting the reference number above.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
Information Rights Unit
 
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
 
 
 
Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?
 
You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.
 
Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request. 
 
 
Complaint
 
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.
 
Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:
 
FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]
 
In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
 
The Information Commissioner
 
After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
 
For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at [1]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. 
Alternatively, phone or write to:
 
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700
 
 
Legal Annex
 
Section 1(1)(a)(b) of the Act provides:
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled-
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
 
Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a)states that fact,
(b)specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.
 
Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act provides:
(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-
(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
 
Section 38(1) of the Act provides:
(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to—
(a)endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b)endanger the safety of any individual.
 
Section 40(2) & (3) of the Act provides:
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is-
a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-
i) any of the data protection principles, or
ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded
 
 
 
 
 

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kenner

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015030001571

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2015.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

Freedom of Information request - Operation Shield I would like to request
the following information:

(1) Communications either sent to or from Errol Patterson, the African
Caribbean Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation
Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (2)
Communications either sent to or from Sean Oxley, Detective Superintendent
at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1 January
2014 to the present date. (3) Communications either sent to or from
Richard Wood, Borough Commander at Lambeth MPS concerning 'Operation
Shield' between the period 1 January 2014 to the present date. (4)
Communications either sent to or from Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan
Police Commissioner concerning 'Operation Shield' between the period 1
January 2014 to the present date.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.

DECISION

Operation Shield is a pilot scheme in London for the Group Violence
Intervention Model. It is a partnership initiative led by the Mayor's
Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), the MPS and local authorities.
 
You have asked for communications concerning Operation Shield received by
or sent to the individuals named in your request.

Information has been located for Errol Patterson, the African Caribbean
Community Liaison Officer at Lambeth, Detective Superintendent  Richard
Wood and Detective Superintendent Sean Oxley. No information relevant to
your request was located concerning Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can
be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.  

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am not required
by statute to release the information in full as requested.
In considering the disclosure of the information that you have requested,
I have found the following exemptions apply to the requested information:

Section 31 (a) - Law Enforcement
Section 38 - Health and Safety
Section 40 (2)(3) - Personal Information
Section 31 Law Enforcement
In order for the exemption provided under Section 31(1) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would
be likely to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely Section 31(1)(a)
the prevention and detection of crime.  

In this case, this exemption has been applied as disclosure of the
information requested would prejudice areas within law enforcement.  
Evidence of Harm - Section 31 Law Enforcement

The police services/forces of the UK are charged with enforcing the law
and preventing and detecting crime.   Any information released under the
Act which reveals investigative strategies, processes and resourcing
capabilities would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime.

Public Interest Test - Section 31 Law Enforcement

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise police
services'/forces' ability to accomplish their core function of law
enforcement. In this case, there is a very strong public interest in
protecting the law enforcement strategies and capabilities of the MPS.
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure - Section 31 Law
Enforcement  

There is a public interest in the transparency of police operations and
disclosure of how police operations are conducted would improve public
confidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of policing
operations.

Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public
funds are and have been used appropriately.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure - Law Enforcement
 

Release of the documents in full would have the effect of compromising and
disrupting law enforcement processes. Disclosure of the requested
information in full may be of use to those with criminal intent by
revealing the process used by the MPS to identify offenders and strategies
for assisting gang members to exit from a criminal lifestyle.
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map capabilities and processes used by
the MPS.

The release of the information in full is likely to prejudice and inhibit
free and frank discussions and exchange of views between the MPS and
partner agencies as the latter would not expect the MPS to release
information about their views and opinions whilst the pilot for Operation
Shield is ongoing. The impact of this could have severe consequences for
the local community, if partner agencies lack the trust to work together.
 
Balance Test - Section 31 Law Enforcement

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with policing
operations and would hinder the process for gang members seeking
assistance to exit gangs. Anything that undermines this would have a
detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives
and consequently compromising the effectiveness of policing operations.

The release of the requested information in full would undermine the MPS'
ability to plan and deliver Operation Shield effectively

I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

Section 38 Health and Safety

Section 38(1) of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of
information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or
mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of an individual.
 
When this exemption is applied, the harm in disclosure needs to be
demonstrated and a PIT carried out.

Section 38 Evidence of Harm

Disclosure of the information in full is likely to place individuals at
risk of harm and cause those seeking to use Operation Shield to exit from
a criminal lifestyle to be distrustful of the MPS, if through disclosure
under the Act, information is placed in the public domain about gang exit
strategies and processes. This could compromise the mental health of the
person involved and affect community relationships. It would affect the
effectiveness of Operation Shield and other future police operations .
Public Interest Test

Section 38 Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

There is a public interest in disclosing information which increases
transparency about how the MPS is working to combat crime. The public will
be able to have informed discussions about gangs.  
Section 38 Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of the requested information in full, could jeopardise the
mental state and safety of gang members and the general public.  This will
not be in the public interest.  If this information was to fall into the
hands of those wishing to thwart gang exit strategy processes, the
information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the gang
members, their families and  the wider community.

Disclosure of this information in full would reveal details of how
Operation Shield will operate and as such is a real, actual and
substantial risk to the health and safety of the people of London.

Section 38 Balance Test
The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served.   There is a very
strong public interest in protecting the health and safety of the people
of London who would be at risk if this information was disclosed in full.
I consider that the benefit that would result from disclosing the
requested information in full, does not outweigh the harm in disclosure
identified above.
It is therefore in our opinion, based on the balance test that disclosure
of the information in full is not made out.

Section 40 - Personal Information

Section 40(2)(3) of the Act states that information should be exempt if
the question asked constitutes a request for personal information which is
not the requestors.  

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).

I have applied this exemption in that the names of individuals recorded in
the documentation captured by this request constitutes personal data which
would, if released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of the
names of officers/staff and/or other persons that are recorded within the
requested documentation constitutes personal data. The release of this
information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no
reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly
available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to
Condition one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.

Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is
in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.
Balancing Test

Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest
in releasing correspondence related to Operation Shield. However, to
release unredacted document s could be harmful to individuals and the
success of the pilot scheme.

DISCLOSED INFORMATION

Attachments sent under separate advice
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
E-mail me, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
Information Rights Unit

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Legal Annex

Section 1(1)(a)(b) of the Act provides:
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled-
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a)states that fact,
(b)specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act provides:
(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-
(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

Section 38(1) of the Act provides:
(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to—
(a)endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b)endanger the safety of any individual.
Section 40(2) & (3) of the Act provides:
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is-
a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-
i) any of the data protection principles, or
ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org